Thursday, June 18, 2009

A post I didn't want to have to write.

I really and truly wanted to ignore this but I've finally had enough and I'm going to address it, once and for all, and move on.

At the moment, in festering, right-wing pig lagoons like Wendy "Right Girl" Sullivan's, the current meme is, "CC threatened Dick Evans' kids! He threatened to harm them! He's a monster!!!" So let's get to the bottom of this, shall we?

Long story short: for no reason that he has ever provided (and can't provide), Richard Evans claims that I support or enable pedophilia and, as an attempt at what passes for clever wit in his household, he once registered a lookalike domain name to this one, and redirected it to NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association), thereby driving readers to a web site that promotes sex with children and child rape. That was Dick's idea of intellectual discourse in the blogosphere.

Not surprisingly, I was seriously unhappy at that creepy misrepresentation, and what followed was a period of increasingly acriminous blogging, culminating in me (very unwisely, I will admit) tossing out the following threat:

So here's the deal -- as long as Dick insists on redirecting that look-alike domain to NAMBLA, I will continue to post increasingly personal information about his family. See how that works? In short, what happens from here on out is entirely in Dick's hands. All that remains to be seen is whether it's more important for Dick to protect his family's privacy, or for him to score points being an irresponsible dipshit.

(You don't need a link for that, since I'm admitting I wrote it and you're about to see it again soon, anyway.)

So, out of a sense of absolute frustration, I snapped and wrote something stupid, but I have never acted on that and my motivation was that, if I just sounded dangerous, Dick Evans might finally back off and do the right thing. I was bluffing, and hoping he fell for it. And it's not even like I was demanding anything unreasonable -- take down that dishonest web site, stop lying about me, and it'll be over and we can move on. Not such an unreasonable demand, yes?

You won't believe what happened next. A normal person, "threatened" thusly, might have cared about their kids' safety and done the right thing. A "normal" person might have immediately reported said "threats" to the authorities. A "normal" person might have put their children's safety above the freedom to continue a stupid, crass, tasteless (and defamatory) practical joke. Dick Evans is not a normal person. This is his response, a screenshot from here, in case Dick ever tries to go back and erase the evidence:

Go back and read that again. And again. Slowly. And really and truly appreciate what happened there.

While currently running around the Intertoobz crying and shrieking about how I was looking to threaten his children, the one time I wrote something that could be interpreted that way, Dick Evans showed no fear whatsoever. No concern. No anxiety. No, he did something else.

He explicitly invited me to go after his kids. "Do your best," he wrote. Bring it on. They're fair game.

Make sure you understand the mind-numbing callousness of a father who, when presented with what he perceives as danger to his children, invites it. "Do your best." But now, because it suits his purposes, Dick is running around to anyone who will listen, claiming to be petrified for the sake of his kids from that bad old CC. The bad old CC to which he offered up his children for attack. In public. Because he was having fun in the blogosphere and he didn't feel like quitting.

Richard Evans has no grounds for whining about anything. He's not scared of me, and he never has been. All this weepy fear of his is utterly and totally bogus, and he's proved it by cheerily and publicly offering up his children for attack. But now he wants to play the "concerned parent" card.

Not likely, Dick. And I'm done debating this with you. Anyone who runs across Dick's pathetic and insincere blubbering anywhere on the Intertoobz is welcome to link back to this post. I'm not going to address this "CC threatened to harm Dick's kids" crap anymore. Yes, what I wrote was idiotic, and I did it in the vain hope that I could pull off the bluff, and this would be resolved, and we could all get back to blogging. It never occurred to me that Dick Evans valued a wicked practical joke more than the safety of his own children.

Ah, well. Live and learn.AFTERSNARK: One of the other memes over at Wendy's Pig Lagoon is the screeching of, "CC suggested people find what school they go to, and talk to their teachers, and point out Dick's obsession with NAMBLA, and that's a horrible thing to suggest since that would obviously open them up to harassment."

Well, yeah, it might. Maybe almost as much as having a father who openly and publicly flaunts his obsession with pedophilia web sites and uses lookalike domain names to promote them by directing traffic to them. Dick apparently wants the freedom to do that, but he wants the inevitable backlash from it to be someone else's fault. That's awfully convenient.

It's amusing that Dick's rabid defenders are shrieking constantly about how I should be held accountable for what I've written, but that Dick should, curiously, get a free pass for his behaviour. Apparently, accountability for thee but not for me. That's always the way it works with these people, isn't it?

You wrapped yourself in the mantle of pedophilia and child rape sites, Dick. You openly and publicly got into bed with a web site that promotes the sexual exploitation of children, because it seemed like such a wicked cool practical joke at the time. Today? Eh ... not so much.

You made that decision, Dick. So you could at least have the decency and integrity to wear it proudly, without whining about it. In short, Dick, your increasingly public perception as a spokesperson for the sexual exploitation of kids is not my fault. There's only one person who's responsible for that. And -- hint -- it's not me.

Cyber-squatting is _one_ of the things he did. It was also an act of intimidation, and an attempt to slandar. I'm well aware of others he has done this to (particularly Somena Media), and it is for this reason I ended up buying up as many domains that could be associated with my name and web site as I could.

But if the incident occurred around the 2004 election, I'm wondering if it might be related to Harper's own miscue about the NDP and the Liberals "supporting child pornography" for giving the cold shoulder to his (poorly written) anti-child pornography platform. Maybe you laughed at Harper's legislation, and Evans decided to make the equation.

James, I think you're attributing a lot more thought and political awareness to Richard's deception than Richard himself was willing to expend.

My understanding of his reasoning is more like, "Blar har har, CC is such a moron and he totally is probably a child molester, so I'll register a domain like his and link it to NAMBLA, har har, fap fap fap."

My conversations with him on the subject revealed approximately this level of awareness and understanding.

(Richard, feel free to file a lawsuit against me for that statement. Contact me by e-mail when your lawyer has the C&D letter ready and I'll give you my mailing address.)

So then, In Richard's view of things, it's perfectly fine to direct traffic to NAMBLA because he thought it was funny?

I've got the gist of it, then?

Good, because I want to make sure that I'm clear on the fact that Richard Evans is of the opinion that the sexual exploitation of children is just freakin' hilarious, and that's perfefctly okay, because he had a disclaimer ... somewhere.... about stuff.

Huh whut? 0_o

If I follow the argument, as I've been trying to do between bouts of nausea and fever (stupid allergies to stupid insect bites... *mumble* *mumble*) it seems that Richard's actions are supposed to be seen as some sort of ... satire? Joke? Political statement?

Okay, so I don't get it. I'm quite sure that I never will. I seem to have a very hard time putting myself in the head space of such a slimy character.

Has he ever provided an actual answer as to why he did this and why he thought this type of action was appropriate?

Has he ever once explained, publicly, why he would create a link which would drive traffic to, and thereby potentially increase the revenue of (via ads, which I assume they have... I've never been there, and won't go, because I'm not a sick fucking freakazoid like Dickie) a website which promotes the sexual exploitation of children, while simultaneously claiming to be a good parent?

You know, one day Richard's children will grow up and have kids of their own. Via the magic of the way-back-machine, screen caps, publicly available search engines and the like, his children will be confronted with the knowledge that their own father thought it was not only funny, but perfectly all right to do such a thing.

They're going to have to think about this every time they see their kids sitting on his lap, every time he hugs and kisses them, every time he reads them a story... They're going to have to watch that with the knowledge that Richard not only threw THEM "under the bus", so to speak, but that he willfully, willingly and all on his own helped out an organization devoted to pedophilia apologetics.

...and they'll also be stuck knowing that he never once apologized, or admitted that his actions may have helped to hurt innocent children.

I'm no psychic, but I see along series of incredibly uncomfortable family dinners and a large number of hefty therapy bills in their future.

As I recall, he once explained his actions as having something to do with his particular concept of the “free market”… Essentially, that having purchased a domain name, he had every right to do whatever the hell he wanted with it, irrespective of how immoral, deceitful and/or malicious it may be.

The fact is, based on Richard's well-documented behaviour of cyber-staking and cyber-harassment (along with the psycho-sexual obsession) and *his* posting of his family's personal information on the Internet, anyone could have thought of bringing his behaviour to the attention of authorities that should be concerned about his children's welfare, regarless of CC's post. If I lived in Calgary, I would have done that long ago.

Long ago, I also I suggested that his ISP be alerted to a possible abuse of his terms of use agreement, although I've since discovered those things mean absolutely nothing.

During this entire thing, many people had suggested that people simply ignore Richard Evans. But as we all know, he make that very difficult. He continues to show up at other venues of his own volition and continues to harass by making vicious accusations that are hard to go unchallenged. That's where the problem lies and that should have been stopped.

This whole gang of wingnut thugs needs to have their asses handed to them, at long last. I'm sick of their criminal dishonesty.

"During this entire thing, many people had suggested that people simply ignore Richard Evans. But as we all know, he make that very difficult."

Exactly. And even at my most intemperate above, all I wanted Dick to do was take down the defamatory domain name and his obvious libel, and I was happy to go on my way. He refused.

I gave him a trivially easy out, and he had no interest in it because he was having too much fun being an asshole.

Really, if that "statement of claim" arrives, I'm sure it's going to be a beaut. He should get Patrick Ross to help him write it. Then it would be awesome. I'm sure the phrase "So what CC was saying was ..." would figure prominently.

P.S. Actually, taking this moderately seriously, if such a statement does arrive, are there any lawyers out there that would like a private look at it? Drop me a note at the CC mailbox. I'd prefer to hear only from folks who have been regular readers or participants here. But that shouldn't affect the ultimate and inevitable entertainment value.

I don't see how it would help to ignore him. His dishonesty and self admitted association with pedophilia apologists ought to be made as public as possible,if only to allow the other parents in his community an opportunity to keep their kids as far away from him as possible.

After all, if Richard Evans thinks that this kind of action is an appropriate response to a disagreement, what's to stop him from doing something equally distasteful to someone else? (..and as we have seen, he HAS done it to others.) If he thinks it's fine to use his own children as "bait" or "ammunition" in an internet fight, what's to stop him from using the children of others in such a manner?

Blech. I'm no longer sure if my nausea is due to a surfeit of insect bites or simply a visceral reaction to the odious pile of crap that is Richard Evans.

Two things:1. Somebody using the handle Code-something declared "you're all idiots" yesterday in another discussion thread. He seems to think left and right in the blogosphere are equally guilty and he's "not above" the fray but "observing". (He thinks of himself as observing from above, I would say.) Question: Can any sane person look at this situation and draw an equivalency between the two sides? Really?

2. Why doesn't Richard Evans just admit what he did was wrong? It obviously was, and an admission of wrongdoing as part of an apology would go a long way to laying this thing to rest.

I say point No. 2 in all seriousness. Mr. Evans *should* want to put all this behind him and move on.

The problem, Stimpy, is that I think Dick has Twatsy-itis: He looks at words and he interprets them the way he wishes, not as they actually are.

He registers a domain and redirects it to NAMBLA, then claims that it proves that I enable pedophiles. I swear, it would almost be worth ending up in court to see him try that on a judge, and watch the increasingly puzzled and outraged expression as what the judge is being asked to believe starts to register. Really, it would be awesome. Must-see TV.

P.S. Oh, I've heard that Dick is, in fact, running for Calgary City Council again in 2010. You'd think that someone that wanted a political career would have wanted all this to disappear. Apparently not.

He can run as the "NAMBLA" party candidate. That should win hearts and minds out there in Ward 4.

I also seem to remember the same thing being done to somenamedia and in fact RE commenting under the name he registered and trying to pass off "his" comments as those of SM--and also that he redirected people there to NAMBLA. Not at all sure of my memory being correct as to the precise facts though....

I also seem to remember the same thing being done to somenamedia and in fact RE commenting under the name he registered and trying to pass off "his" comments as those of SM

He was doing a lot of sock-puppeting at one point and engaging his surrogates (one by the name of 'Jeff') to sock-puppet/harrass for him. I think "abuababasat" is also one them. It's "awakened" recently for some reason.

...lot of weird people in the world, that's for sure. Should have been dealt with long ago.

Somebody please tell me that they notified the authorities to shut down this "NAMBLA" site as soon as they were aware it existed? How is the very existence of a site featuring child molestation allowed to remain accessible for any length of time in this country? Or am I being naive here?

Free speech, Scott. Look, it's odious but certainly, as has been proved by now, not illegal to have such a website or organization in existence.

However, as much as Richard Evans would like you to be believe it to be true, free speech is not "Speech without consequences".

He seems to think that because it's legal for them to exist and spread their message of child sexual exploitation, under the guise of: "But children CAN consent, and besides, loving them (in an admittedly physical and very adult way) isn't really all that bad, it never hurt a single kid who's been used as a sex object by an adult!" it's perfectly moral and ethical for him to direct traffic their way.

He fails to realize, however, that not everyone in this world is a devoid of reason and morals as he so obviously is, and although I support free speech completely, it doesn't mean that I can't take him to task for supporting an organization which is so vile and disgusting.

Man, I can't wait for him to run for public office. It's going to be a HOOT to watch try to weasel his way out of this. Not that he can, mind you, but watching him twist and turn on the hook of his own making is going to be a gas.

Scott: He linked to the NAMBLA site, which I don't think is based in Canada. But yeah, I would hope the authorities were notified. At the very least the neighbourhood cops should know someone who promoted NAMBLA was living in the area.

NAMBLA is the "North American Man-Boy Love Association," who advocate for legalizing that kind of behaviour. And while it may be thoroughly repulsive, they are a legal organization and they haven't broken any obvious laws that would get them shut down.

As best I know, they advocate for that kind of freedom, and advocacy isn't illegal. You might be disgusted by the idea (as am I), but they are apparently allowed their freedom of speech, just like everyone else.

There is no "apparently" about it. It's a fact. They have every right to spew the garbage they do, and you and I... and everyone else... has to live with that, or we are also advocating to have our right to free speech tampered with.

However, and this is another point I can't stress strongly enough: Free Speech, while free, is not without it's consequences. We all, thanks to the same principles of free speech, have the right to proclaim the odiousness of such activities and speak out against them.

We have the right to reject such claims as made by NAMBLA, and use whatever LEGAL means we can to expose the consequences of their advocacy.

The problem, Stimpson, is that it's not illegal. Not illegal = not the business of the police. As much as it sucks, you can't report someone to the police for doing something they have every right to do under the law.

As outrageous as it is, and as awful as it is to think that we can't prevent it, there is no reason, legally, for the police to be involved.

I've been down this road before with another vile freak, and there was nothing, absolutely nothing, that the police can or will do about it until a crime has actually been committed.

Which is, as I said before, not entirely a negative, as it also means that Richard Evans can't report *you* for doing somethign he objects to, but which you are legally allowed to do.

CC: I agree with you completely. Don't get me wrong here. I think Dickie is a fucking disgusting freak, and I think he's so worthless as a human being I wouldn't piss on him to put him out if he were in flames...

Someone asked if he could be reported to the police for his apparent support of NAMBLA, and the answer is: No, he can't. I wish he could, but if that *were* the case, then we could also be reported for actions which others found morally reprehensible.

As for the redirect and his statement, that's a different matter. That's, as far as I've been able to tell, an actionable position, and I hope he gets his as handed to him in court for it.

But if the incident occurred around the 2004 election, I'm wondering if it might be related to Harper's own miscue about the NDP and the Liberals "supporting child pornography" for giving the cold shoulder to his (poorly written) anti-child pornography platform. Maybe you laughed at Harper's legislation, and Evans decided to make the equation.

As I recall, James is correct (I believe this is also where Evans came up with his juvenile "thai-guy" nickname). The logic being that if you opposed the Cons, you therefore supported pedophilia. Tortured logic, yes (also fallacious), but to Evans (and Ross) the more tortured the logic is, the more "clever" and therefore "convincing" it becomes.

If Richard actually does take this courst, he will quickly learn that all of activities and actions (as well as yours CC) will be viewed and questioned by the Judge. A judge will not view either you very favorably in this case,...

This is where I discussed and mentioned degrees of loosing,...

~sigh~

This is where you are best served CC to talk to a real lawyer,... get your files together, by completely honest with the lawyer and show all the dirt on both sides of isle. Know where you stand legally at this point.

I'm well aware that my hands are not totally clean here, Zorph. The difference is that I actually understand what words mean, and I can make a case based on reality. I doubt Dick Evans can say the same.

OK thanks everyone. So I get it now. NAMBLA, though highly dubious, has a long history and is (according to wikipedia) pretty good at managing to stay a hair within the law. From the descriptions here, I had surmised the site was a place where child pornography was made available, which I guess isn't the case, but I am not about to give their site a hit, thanks very much. Vile bastards, but I don't think that the very knowledge of their existence points to anything insidious. Dirty trick though. CC, I would tread cautiously, and maybe lawyer-up, as Zorpheous suggests. Libel/Slander is not as hard to prove in Canada as we like to think. The onus is on the defense to show what was written or said was "fair comment".

The case will certainly make it as far as discovery. They will attempt to require you to turn over all contact and real world information you have on all commenters here.

That's what Richard is really after. The "no-libs" IP trap is not working as well as he'd like. He wants to uncover everyone he can, before the mass intimidation campaigns. Yes, I've Godwin'd the thread.

Do any of the commenters here actually fear "exposure"? Would it matter? After all, if Dickie tried to use that information to try to... oh I don't know... intimidate or harass anyone, he's just setting himself up for a world of misery, isn't he?

...and what would the opinions or statements of commenters have to do with the (and I use the term VERY loosely) case he's trying to bring against CC? (I'm serious here, I don't see how it's relevant, unless he intends to bring suit against those commenters as well.)

Is he well-heeled enough to spend the money -- and it will undoubtedly cost him plenty of money -- just to unmask, to a greater or lesser extent, commenters on CC?.I could be wrong of course. But my premise fits the facts. It doesn't cost that much to file some legal paperwork. The whole point of discovery is to avoid wasting court time.

He is an ideologue, obviously, and a vicious spiteful one that cannot stand losing an argument. He is but the tip of the iceberg. Many ideologues do not accept peaceful disagreement, and will resort of escalating levels of harassment and intimidation, up to and including violence and murder.

Do any of the commenters here actually fear "exposure"?.Yes.

Would it matter?.Yes.

After all, if Dickie tried to use that information to try to... oh I don't know... intimidate or harass anyone, he's just setting himself up for a world of misery, isn't he?.If he is caught. But you have seen groups such as Operation Rescue or Fred Phelps or the white supremacists. They have their above ground people, who provide the targeting information to their thugs and hit men. So it isn't just about what RE himself may or may not do.

...and what would the opinions or statements of commenters have to do with the (and I use the term VERY loosely) case he's trying to bring against CC? (I'm serious here, I don't see how it's relevant, unless he intends to bring suit against those commenters as well.).The opinions of others here have nothing to do with his "case". He need only demonstrate they "might" be relevant to get the court order for discovery. He's just after the list, to accidentally publish so the exterminators can find it.

I'm sorry, but I really am taking this lightly, and for a fairly obvious reason. If what I've written is deemed to be "actionable," then there are a couple dozen Canadian right-wing dingbats who are going to be in deep fucking shit.

Those idiots should not be cheering this on. They should be pissing themselves in fear, realizing that if I get hauled up for what I've written, they are so next.

Stimpy: Enough already... I think you doth protest too much. My outside-looking-in was in relation to observing this specific tempest in a teapot.

Now, I do have a correction to make. I should have said 'You're all acting like idiots.' I do apologize for my original choice of words.

I do have a comment to make about the discussed legal actions. If I defame, libel or slander you, and you get annoyed and rip me the same back, my unlawful behavior does not excuse yours. Each action is treated separately by a court, and the defense 'But he did it first!' is not going to get you anywhere with a judge. This is why I suggested the tone be raised in the discussion, and all involved be aware of their rights and responsibilities in public speech.